Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Leskovec v. Circuit Works Corp.

November 6, 2009

THOMAS LESKOVEC, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CIRCUIT WORKS CORPORATION, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Charles P. Kocoras, District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter comes before the court on the motion of Defendant Circuit Works Corporation ("CWC") for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is granted.

BACKGROUND*fn1

Plaintiff Thomas Leskovec ("Leskovec") began his employment with CWC through a temporary agency in April 2005 and received an offer for a permanent position with the company on August 1, 2005. By all accounts, Leskovec's first year at CWC went smoothly. In August 2006, Leskovec received an "exceeds expectations" performance evaluation from his direct supervisor, Lori Woten. Leskovec's job at CWC primarily focused on work for one customer, Incredible Technologies. Sometime in 2006, however, CWC lost Incredible Technologies as a customer and ceased production on its assemblies in September 2006. After losing Incredible Technologies' business, CWC trained Leskovec to perform different tasks for other customers.

Despite CWC's training efforts, Leskovec admits that he made a series of mistakes when working on his new assignments. On November 6, 2006, CWC issued a verbal warning to Leskovec after he input incorrect information into a CWC data entry system. After issuing the verbal warning, Leskovec's supervisor, Lori Woten, met with Leskovec to go over the time entry process. On January 19, 2007, Leskovec cleaned some lenses with the wrong material, resulting in the customer's rejection of CWC components with the damaged lenses and a loss to CWC of over a thousand dollars. Around the same time, Leskovec placed some circuit board labels in the incorrect position. CWC issued a written warning to Leskovec for failing to follow directions in improperly cleaning the lenses and placing the circuit board labels in the wrong place. After issuing the written warning, Woten again worked with Leskovec to explain his errors. On February 22, 2007, Leskovec received a second written warning when he again placed some circuit board labels in the incorrect place.

Following this third warning and fourth performance error, Woten consulted with two other members of CWC's management and the three jointly made a recommendation to Tom Thompson, CWC's owner, to terminate Leskovec's employment. Thompson possessed sole authority to terminate employees. Thompson ultimately decided to terminate Leskovec on February 23, 2007.

After his termination, Leskovec filed a charge of retaliation against CWC with the Illinois Department of Human Rights ("IDHR"), which was cross-filed with the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission ("EEOC"). Leskovec's claim alleged that CWC had retaliated against him because of a discrimination charge he had filed against his previous employer, Game Works. The IDHR dismissed Leskovec's claim against CWC for lack of substantial evidence on November 5, 2007. On July 8, 2008, the EEOC dismissed Leskovec's claim and issued a right to sue letter.

CWC and Game Works have no common ownership and have no business dealings with each other. No one involved in Leskovec's discipline or termination had ever heard of Leskovec's charge against Game Works prior to his termination. Leskovec did tell a co-worker, Rene Paz, about the Game Works charge but Paz did not discuss it with anyone involved with Leskovec's discipline or terminations. Paz himself had no involvement in the decision to discipline or terminate Leskovec.

On August 25, 2008, Leskovec filed suit in this court, alleging that CWC retaliated against him for engaging in protected activity and discriminated against him based on the basis of age, sex, race, and national origin. We dismissed Leskovec's discrimination claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies on December 15, 2008. CWC now moves for summary judgment on Leskovec's remaining claim of retaliation.

LEGAL STANDARD

Summary judgment is appropriate only when "the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). A genuine issue of material fact exists when the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could find for the non-movant. Buscaglia v. United States, 25 F.3d 530, 534 (7th Cir. 1994). The movant in a motion for summary judgment bears the burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact by specific citation to the record; if the party succeeds in doing so, the burden shifts to the non-movant to set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue of fact for trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). In considering motions for summary judgment, a court construes all facts and draws all inferences from the record in favor of the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986).

With these principles in mind, we turn to CWC's motion.

DISCUSSION

Title VII prohibits an employer from retaliating against an employee who "made a charge" under Title VII. 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000e-3(a). Leskovec can prove retaliation using either the direct or the indirect method. Metzger v. Ill. State Police, 519 F.3d 677, 681 (7th Cir. 2008). Under the direct method, Leskovec must present either direct or circumstantial evidence showing that (1) he engaged in statutorily protected activity; (2) he suffered a materially adverse action; and (3) a causal connection exists between the two. Argyropoulos v. City of Alton, 539 F.3d 724, 733 (7th Cir. 2008). To make out a prima facie case under the indirect method, Leskovec must show: (1) he engaged in statutorily protected activity; (2) he suffered a materially adverse action; (3) he performed his job satisfactorily; and (4) he was treated less favorably than some similarly situated employee who did not engage in statutorily protected activity. Id. CWC is entitled to summary judgment unless Leskovec presents sufficient evidence under the direct method or makes out a prima facie case under the indirect method. CWC concedes that Leskovec engaged in statutorily protected activity by ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.